Plus: Will bank-crypto kill Bitcoin?

Collage of posts from @RealDonaldTrump/TwitterTrump's got his hand on the button, all right—the "send Tweet" button, that is. In a series of increasingly unhinged weekend statements that spilled over into Monday morning, the president insisted that his version of reality is the only one we can trust and that anyone who disputes it is simply beholden to the "Fake News," the "Corrupt Media," the "Department of 'Justice,'" and "Crooked Hillary." In Trump's reality, talking loudly on Twitter counts as diplomacy, everyone was out to get Trump from the beginning, and anything negative published about not just Trump but about Russian antics in general is just spin from "13 Angry Democrats," the "Fake News Media" (words he has tweeted disparagingly seven times since July 20), and others caught up in the FBI's "Witch Hunt."

On Monday morning, Trump fired off an array of repetitive and rambling tweets accusing Obama-era Justice officials of inappropriately seeking a warrant from a FISA court to look into Carter Page's activities, using the infamous dossier—paid for and disseminated (at various points) by Trump opponents on the right and the left—as a pretense. Over the weekend, the FBI released hundreds of pages of files related to Page, an energy consultant who became an adviser to the Trump campaign and also a confidential informant to the FBI about Russia matters. They show the shadowy world of FISA warrants being used against Page in the same shadowy way FISA warrants and courts generally are.

If you have issues with the Carter Page FISA application, then you have issues with FISA generally, because there's zero indication there's anything unusual about this application, other than the fact that its target worked on a U.S. presidential campaign.

Trump also opined on Twitter over the weekend that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election was "all a big hoax" orchestrated by folks invested in Hillary Clinton becoming the next president.

I had a GREAT meeting with Putin and the Fake News used every bit of their energy to try and disparage it. So bad for our country!

And then there was—tucked between this typical fare—what seemed like a threat of nuclear annihilation against Iran. Cue the cable news and Twitterati with "We're all going to die!"

Almost a year ago, Trump set off a round of panicked prognosticating when he promised to unleash "fire and fury" on North Korea. But now North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and the U.S. president are show-biz-style besties, posing for photos and singing each other's praises despite the fact that little material has changed between the two countries.

Perhaps bolstered by this pseudo-diplomatic display, Trump tried the same tack with Iran, tweeting Sunday evening that if Iranian President Hassan Rouhani ever threatened the U.S., he would "SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE." Trump's all-caps message continued with a declaration that America would no longer "STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"

His tweet seems to have come in response to recent Rouhani comments warning America not to mess with Iran.

But despite the freakout from folks stateside, the world—including Iranian leaders—shrugged.

"This is how seriously people take the United States of America these days. This is what our country has come to." https://t.co/GlCoppacOM

Meanwhile, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen claims to have audio of the president discussing his payoff to alleged former fling Stormy Daniels. Trump responded by tweeting that it was "inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client—totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!"

FREE MARKETS

Bitcoin badgered by bank cryptocurrencies? The European Union's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is warning that "if banks and central banks were to issue their own cryptocurrencies it could be bad news for the likes of bitcoin," notes Forbes.

"The arrival of permissioned cryptocurrencies promoted by banks, even by central banks, will reshape the current competition level in the cryptocurrency market, broadening the number of competitors," committee members wrote in a new report. "However, the market power of banks in traditional banking services might be used to limit competition in the cryptocurrency market through pre-emptive acquisitions or predatory pricing schemes."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

I hold almost the inverse opinion. I can square that by realizing that Iran =/= Russia, and that countries with vastly different peoples and values can work together for common purposes. Should be the same for any lefty holding the beliefs you describe.

Almost inverse. Iran isn't "literally Hitler" but they're bad. I'm not a fan. I'm still opposed to most of our meddling with them, so I'm not particularly hawkish RE: Iran.

But my answer still resolves the issue quite well. Good people sometimes work with bad people if it is in their interests. Now apply that to the world stage. Geopolitics is not so black and white as to make that impossible or confusing.

"You cry war boner when anyone dissents on the Russia policy, even though the only guy who ever wanted war with Russia is John Bolton."

Yeah and Bolton is in the administration which, in addition to all the aggressive actions we've taken against Russia, makes your position that Trump is soft on Russia exceptionally dumb.

"But, when actual nuclear war is threatened, you bring it back to Russia. You don't question the threat. Trump brings us closer to war than any other candidate."

So you most definitely don't get the notion that we shouldn't have a war posture with Russia or Iran? That is what I said. And I was demanding that Russiaphobes like yourself explain your stupid inconsistency on wanting "something" more on Russia, but not on Iran. That's stupid. My point is consistent: no belligerence with either country.

Funny, I was going to point out the opposite. Just last week, Trump was being smart by not telling Russia "Knock it off or else" because there is no "or else" - why would Trump be dumb like Obama with his "red line", letting his mouth write checks his ass can't cash? If there's really nothing we can or will do about Russia trying to influence our elections (tu quoque, whatabout, but Hillary) why bother getting all swole and acting like there is something we can or will do about it? It just makes us look silly and weak and sad! and dumb! to the rest of the world.

And now here he is telling Iran if they don't STFU, he's going to rip their head off and shit down their neckhole? What happened to Trump's wisdom in not letting his mouth write checks his ass can't cash? Why not take his words at face value if he's insisted so many times he means what he says? He doesn't, the fat-headed loudmouth talks shit 24/7 and lies every time he opens his mouth, but still. The guy claims you should take his words at face value. Except for when you're an idiot for thinking he means what he says. So which one is this? Do we believe what he says or shrug off his spewing random nonsense?

But... but... Trump met with Putin! They had a MEETING! That proves that he's not been aggressive toward them at all and he's really Putin's puppet. Because two hostile nations have never sat down to talk about their issues or places they may have common ground ever.

On Monday morning, Trump fired off an array of repetitive and rambling tweets accusing Obama-era Justice officials of inappropriately seeking a warrant from a FISA court to look into Carter Page's activities...

Julian "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" Sanchez is a big fan of FISA and the rest of the National Security surveillance state. I hear Cato is working on a policy paper to repeal the 4A.

A Georgia state lawmaker is facing multiple calls to resign after he shouted racial slurs and took off his pants during a segment which aired Sunday on Sacha Baron Cohen's controversial new show, "Who is America?"

Republican state Rep. Jason Spencer repeatedly yelled the N-word and mimicked a Chinese tourist while taking a photo up the skirt of an actor pretending to be a Muslim woman during the show. He also exposed his rear end in an exercise to ward off a potential terrorist while shouting, "USA mother----r."

It could be interesting if you could actually debate ideas instead of shouting "ANARCHIST" from the rooftops.

Ideas like natural law vs legislated law. Ideas like the laws that society follows, whether they are legislated or not, and the legislated law that society ignores. How are they enforced? Society enforces laws that are not legislated, and plenty of legislated law is not enforced.

Stuff like that.

Or you can call me an anarchist.

I'd like to have a conversation.

Are you going to converse like a grown up, or call me names like a child?

sarcasmic|7.23.18 @ 11:59AM|#
Others have made similar comments and you waved them away as anarchists.
You don't debate. You assert, call names, and walk away.

I provided you with links to people with PHDs who say the same thing and you dismissed it.
Heck, you've dismissed Adam Smith, Hazlitt and Bastiat. And Hayek as well.
I want to discuss ideas. You want to wave your hand.

Oh Sarcasmic, you throw out all those names but you never are able to fit them into discussions since you're not into discussions. You're a roving anarchist. It funny when you zoom around and try and undermine and misrepresent the Constitution and Libertarianism.

For one thing we're not anarchists. For another we like to eat really well. We also have lots of guns and have fun shooting them. When we get together the food is incredible and the recreation is REALLY FUCKING LOUD.

Another false conclusion reached by the professor who brought you "broad conclusions based upon anecdotal experience makes perfect sense". You and John should get a beer sometime, since you both defend such a stupid idea

On Monday morning, Trump fired off an array of repetitive and rambling tweets accusing Obama-era Justice officials of inappropriately seeking a warrant from a FISA court to look into Carter Page's activities, using the infamous dossier—paid for and diseminated (at various points) by Trump opponents on the right and the left—as a pretense

To be fair, Trump was right about the US Government spying on him.

It is interesting that a British spy who tried to influence the US election 2016 was not indicted by Mueller though.

He didn't spy.
He didn't commit a crime.
He was hired to do a job. That's legal.
The Russians weren't hired.
They provided illegal in kind donations.
They were asked for and provided stolen materials to a congressional candidate.

2) Christopher Steele was hired to do a job. That job was legal. There was no in kind donation, there was no theft, etc. Christopher Steele's citizenship has as much relevance as the guy running the copy machine at the local Kinko's (sorry, FedEx Office, right?). He was hired.

3) When documents are stolen, those who steal them are investigated and prosecuted. Those who worked with them are also prosecuted. People, such as theoretically a Congressional candidate who ask for and receive stolen materials commit a crime in doing so.

Conservatives Reject Unilateral Disarmament In The Face Of Liberal Social Fascism
Case in point, one James Gunn. He's a tiresome lefty jerk who jumped on Twitter to cheer Rosanne's recent defenestration by the SJW mob. Except it turns out he had a whole bunch of icky tweets from a decade ago lurking on the Interwebs, and some conservatives dug them up. Oops. He just had his pointy head stuck on a figurative pike and I just don't care.

Not even a little. Not anymore.

Cultural war is hell, and I propose it be hell first and foremost on the liberals who started it.

It's pretty much the same as those conservatives who push for tougher and tougher policing and think nothing bad will happen to them. Then they get busted on a minor possession charge, or have a no-knock raid kick down their door because they got the wrong address.

People compete to look "tough" on whoever their culture-war boogeymen are. They insist on bigger and bigger penalties for smaller and smaller offences. And then they are shocked, just shocked, when those penalties start applying to them.

No one is willing to admit that the offences have gotten so small that everyone is a target because that would involve looking weak.

Apparently a bunch of celebrities went on their Twitter accounts to conduct a tweet-purge the day he got cut loose. Could just be a coincidence, but I'd be curious to see what was in those tweets that made them delete-worthy.

Everyone keeps bring up Roseanne in the context of the Gunn thing, and it really doesn't make much sense as a comparison.

Roseanne made her show ending tweet "now", as it were.

Gunn made the tweets that ended his movie series 10 years ago.

If someone says something horrible directly to you, it's pretty reasonable to believe that's how they feel now. If you have to go look up something horrible someone said 10 years ago, there's not nearly the sort of urgency to it. It makes more sense to find out if there's been a change in 10 years time, as opposed to 10 minutes time.

But Trump can't do the same to them, Trump doesn't control the DoJ. The DoJ is part of the Administrative State and they attacked Trump as "not one of us", an outsider they knew wasn't housebroken the way most every career politician is. They generally frown on the GOP because the GOP likes to talk big about reining in the AS, but they really don't have to do much more than keep an eye on them, they know barking dogs don't bite. Trump seems to be a real threat, though.* They've got Jeff Sessions as their fearless leader and he's thoroughly housebroken, he can be led around by the nose. "Go get the druggies, Jeffy boy! That's a good doggie!"

It should be noted that if you don't have a problem with the Carter Page FISA then you must concede that you take the Fusion GPS dossier at face value, despite the fact that the only things that have been confirmed in the political document is information that was already public.

Of course. You use all the evidence you can get. Of course, it's evaluated based on trustworthiness of the source, independent verification, etc. If someone has bragged about being a Kremlin advisor, that's also evidence. Also, previously having been recruited to be an unwitting agent. You write that it was a document written for a political rival, which was done.

It is not the basis for a conviction. It is the basis for further investigation. We're talking probable cause, not reasonable doubt. If he hadn't been an agent of a foreign power, it would have been clear, and the case would have been closed.

Complaining about the FISA warrant really shows that the procedural defense is all that is left, not actual innocence.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The warrant application is heavily redacted but the key point of a warrant to issue is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

In a series of increasingly unhinged weekend statements that spilled over into Monday morning, the president insisted that his version of reality is the only one we can trust and that anyone who disputes it is simply beholden to the "Fake News," the "Corrupt Media," the "Department of 'Justice,'" and "Crooked Hillary."

I agree. I would hope that he is being tongue-in-cheek, but considering how he has pushed back against Congress for investigating these agencies I'm not certain anymore. I still don't understand what is so egregious about Congress investigating executive agencies, which is their prerogative.

But, to claim that the Congress who expands FISA for the little people while investigating it for the powerful is libertarian is crazy. Libertarians aren't supposed to be in favor of special rules for the powerful. If it's good for the terrorist, it's good for the President.

One morning in San Francisco, I just wanted to buy my kids their usual donut shop fare: cake donuts with chocolate frosting and a chocolate milk. It was going to be a special morning treat while their mother ran in the Bay to Breakers.

We stop by the local neighborhood donut shop and the closest thing they have is, like, an artisanal Belgian chocolate with a hint of cardamom. I ask if they can get chocolate milk and the guy at the counter, with the tattoos and rings in his ears says, "We don't have that. But our barista can make a hot chocolate and then ice it down."

Kids ate it begrudgingly, and what would have cost maybe six bucks in a real donut shop cost well over twenty.

I suppose it's possible that racism motivated the call. But it doesn't seem like there is any particular reason to think so. I would imagine that people occasionally call the cops on white people who they think are acting suspiciously too. Focusing on a tiny handful of specific incidents and just assuming that racism is involved because of the races of the people involved is ridiculous.

If you have issues with the Carter Page FISA application, then you have issues with FISA generally, because there's zero indication there's anything unusual about this application, other than the fact that its target worked on a U.S. presidential campaign.
— Julian Sanchez (@normative) July 22, 2018

Meanwhile, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen claims to have audio of the president discussing his payoff to alleged former fling Stormy Daniels. Trump responded by tweeting that it was "inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client—totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!"

I would question how this recording being leaked wouldn't violate attorney/client privilege in every conceivable manner, is NDA's are hardly illegal or even unusual.

Current thinking is that it was leaked by someone on Trump's team, waiving the privilege. The other possibility is that Cohen wasn't acting as Trump's lawyer in this instance. Either way, it was not held up by the special master.

Cohen was the lawyer to the shell company. Trump said he had nothing to do with that.
Mueller didn't do the Cohen search. That was SDNY.
Trump's lawyer talked about it. That waives privilege. What the SDNY US Attorney wouldn't have had access to, they now do. Because Giuliani talked about it.

"If you have issues with the Carter Page FISA application, then you have issues with FISA generally, because there's zero indication there's anything unusual about this application, other than the fact that its target worked on a U.S. presidential campaign."

----Julian Sanchez

Well, looking at the FISA application, there's the fact that the FBI appears to have been running interference for the Clinton campaign, and some people might take issue with the FBI being used during elections that way--even if they don't have a problem with FISA generally.

Some people have problems with that kind of thing, even if they don't have a problem with FISA courts generally.

Incidentally, IF IF IF the FBI were to sell the empire off for other reasons, rather than a simple cash sum, even people who don't have a problem with the FISA courts generally might have a problem with that.

The FBI and government is pretty incompetent all the time, so lying on warrant applications is business as usual.

Trump was a threat to Hillary for anyone actually paying attention to the run up to election 2016. Some in the FBI clearly were fearful of Hillary not winning and decided to become traitors to the Constitution to do so.

The Gracci brothers, I think, is a better comparison to what is happening here. The Patricians violate norms in response to the Gracci brothers, as tribunes in the House of Tribes, violating norms by passing law without the consent of the Senate. The end result is the elimination of all norms.

Harvey Weinstein would be a massive Hollywood power player.
The sheer sleaziness of the FBI would be unknown.
How bad the CIA is would not be fully known.
The belief that intel services would spy on a campaign for President would be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

As I've said up-thread, I honestly can't tell if Julian is being serious or tongue-in-cheek.

Given the history of secret courts in other parts of the world, NOBODY should be surprised that they are being used for political gain. That's the problem with "FISA generally."

Secret trials are the tools of despots, dictators, and state authorities looking to cling onto power. FISA in it's guise of "national security" is really no different. Of course politicians are going to abuse that power to help them politically. We've essentially legalized Watergate by accepting FISA.

I think the emphasis of Sanchez's argument is meant to be on opposition to FISA entirely.

I don't think he's trying to say that opposition to FISA generally is crazy--so there's no sense in opposing what the FBI did in its warrant application.

I think he's trying to say that if you oppose what the FBI did in its warrant application, you should oppose FISA entirely--like he does. In his enthusiasm to push opposition to FISA generally, he's glossed over some serious problems with the warrant application.

How was the Trump campaign hurt in any way? All Strzok would have had to do is make one call to the New York Times, and Trump would have been sunk. Instead, the FBI said there was no evidence of connection between the campaign, which there was.

Trump was protected by the FBI. There were no actions shown to be taken against Trump because of animus. Everything done in the investigation was by the book.

The actions that hurt Hillary, though, were insubordination and against protocol.

It wasn't. But since when does "no harm no foul" make government abuse of powers okay? Also, the fact that Trump wasn't hurt and they didn't leak anything is, given the partisan nature of the investigation, pretty conclusive proof they didn't find a damn thing and Trump is entirely innocent of wrongdoing.

We know they are not doing it by the book. the FISA application failed to tell the court the origins of the Steele Dossier and cited news reports that used the dossier as confirmation of its veracity. The FBI committed a fraud upon the court to get the FISA warrant. They were not doing it by the book. You just don't mind because you think the FBI going after political opponents of an administration is okay, as long as your side is in charge. I don't think that is going to work out very well for you.

Isikoff admitted that his article was based upon being briefed by Glenn Simpson about the dossier. So the corroborating proof of the dossier was a reporter that was reciting what he was briefed on....from the dossier author

They wrote in the application that the Isikoff article was from the same source as the dossier, but they were not referring to the article to corroborate the dossier.

Like I said in THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING POST, the article was included for Page's denial. It's right there in the heading, Page denies reports of meetings. This has been known since February, when the Schiff memo was released. In each case, Schiff was proven right.

Continuing to rely on the Nunes memo just shows you are indifferent to the truth.

"I am very concerned about his position on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. This is not a small deal for me. This is a big deal. Kavanaugh's position is basically that national security trumps privacy. And he said it very strongly and explicitly. And that worries me."

It's naive at best to think that Kavanaugh is not just going to give the answers that Senators (especially Rand, if his vote is perceived as going to matter) want to hear. I don't know what there really is to keep an "open mind" about in the process after you've reviewed his body of work. And that body of work, when it comes to 4A, stinks. His testimony isn't going to tell you anything compared to his history.

One of the great lines in that movie is when they are at the black bar with the girls from the women's college. They show a shot of Otis Day and the Nights singing a lyric that consists of something like "babamaomao" and then cut to Peter Riegert asking his date "what do you major in?" to which she answers "primitive cultures". The comic timing of it is perfect. It is just subtle enough to not be offensive. If they beat you over the head with it, it would not have been funny. But they do it just perfectly and it cracks me up every time I see it.

In addition to all of the over the top comedy in that movie, there are a ton of subtle lines like that. That movie is one of the best comedies ever made.

I recently read a review of The Simpsons by a millennial type who had never watched it before. They watched several best of seasons, apparently, and couldn't stand it--because of Homer. You see, Homer isn't the kind of person anybody should like or laugh about. He's stupid, abusive to his kids, . . .

It's as if being a socially responsible reviewer meant you had to shove a stick so far up your ass that you can no longer even acknowledge the existence of satire.

You really have to feel sorry for that person. What a dreary awful existence they must have. I understand that at some level their parents and society are to blame for them being like that. But eventually, you have a responsibility to think for yourself. How can anyone not grow up at some point and understand how badly their teachers and parents lied to them?

"If Mueller has something on Trump Russia, and the Monday presser strongly implied that that something was solid, why wouldn't he move on it after Monday? If the president is actually totally compromised by Putin I don't see how Mueller sticks with his timeline after the presser

Which suggests there's not a there there. If there were, Mueller wouldn't be taking it slow. Am I missing something?"

Trump threatened Iran. Now reason goes into full peacenik mode. Doesn't Trump know he is only supposed to threaten Russia? It is remarkable that reason doesn't get whiplash from going from all war all of the time and ranting about Trump's "strange softness on Russia" to now going back to your usual, "how dare anyone pick on Iran" stance.

They have written a ton of articles about Iran. And all of them are in defense of the regime and the need to make peace with them. That is fine except that all that got thrown out the window when it came to Russia.

John: Trump threatened Iran. Now reason goes into full peacenik mode. Doesn't Trump know he is only supposed to threaten Russia? It is remarkable that reason doesn't get whiplash from going from all war all of the time and ranting about Trump's "strange softness on Russia" to now going back to your usual, "how dare anyone pick on Iran" stance.

Sarc: Iranian people are pretty darn cool. It's their government that sucks.

Me: Yes. And the same could be said for all people who live under oppressive states.

Me: Not necessarily. Some cultures just suck

So, John thinks Iranians are "bad" from anecdotal experience and Sarc said they're "good" off of anecdotal experience.

"Trump threatened Iran. Now reason goes into full peacenik mode. Doesn't Trump know he is only supposed to threaten Russia? It is remarkable that reason doesn't get whiplash from going from all war all of the time and ranting about Trump's "strange softness on Russia" to now going back to your usual, "how dare anyone pick on Iran" stance."

Since you are such a hardcore individualist, I'm sure you'll stop using the following words as nouns: liberals, Democrats, progressives, conservatives, Republicans, the alt-right, Americans, Europeans, Iranians, any other nationalities, Catholics, Muslims, any other religious followers, blacks, whites, any other races. Because to come to conclusions based on group membership is unseemly.

I'm talking about not labeling "good culture" versus "bad culture" based upon anecdotal interactions from people in that culture. You are talking about me not labeling people based upon their own self-identified label.

Congrats on defending the position that justifies John labeling all Muslims as coming from a bad culture

This has got to be the dumbest attempt at a "gotcha" that I've ever seen.

John labels Muslims based on whatever information he has. Other people with opinions different from John's label Muslims based on whatever information they have. For some reason, you can't understand different people having different opinions about different cultures. You apparently believe that if I have one opinion on some culture/people and you have a different opinion then one of us has to be right and the other wrong. As seen here:

Well I met a few people who were Chilean and they weren't cool. Ergo, my anecdotal experience cancels out yours.

Because you're the only person who thinks this way. Here's a tip for you: it's possible for different people to think different things about a great deal of subjects based on their experiences.

Which logical fallacy is it? Which logical fallacy states that if two people form differing opinions on groups of people based on members of that group one of them is wrong? Please provide a link so I can peruse .

sarcasmic|7.23.18 @ 11:19AM|#
It would, of course, make more sense to just assume that people are good in general
I don't like to assume. It always bites me in the ass.

sarcasmic|7.23.18 @ 9:47AM|#
No idea. They're slurs against Muslims, so I figured they'd be part of your regular vocabulary.loveconstitution1789|7.23.18 @ 10:34AM|#
I dont think other races of people are worse than my mutt race.
Ever heard of implication? Seriously. Quit while you're behind.

It could be interesting if you could actually debate ideas instead of shouting "ANARCHIST" from the rooftops.

Ideas like natural law vs legislated law. Ideas like the laws that society follows, whether they are legislated or not, and the legislated law that society ignores. How are they enforced? Society enforces laws that are not legislated, and plenty of legislated law is not enforced.

Stuff like that.

Or you can call me an anarchist.

I'd like to have a conversation.

Are you going to converse like a grown up, or call me names like a child?

Americans are pretty cool for the most part. But their government sticks its dick into so many things around the world that from the outside one could easily think it is imperialist. Not to mention the prison population, use of traffic enforcement for collecting revenue from the poor, asset forfeiture, etc.

Heck, but your logic people looking in might say the exact thing you just said, only about us.

If the Iranian Mullahs want to encourage Americans to overthrow their government, I wish them luck. The encouragement only works if the people really want to do it, in which case the government deserves to be overthrown.

Thanks Sarcasmic. And perhaps I have never made that clear, but I have thought that for a long time. The lesson of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan is that you can't remake countries. Those wars failed not militarily but because the government treated them as aid programs with guns.

For me it was very instructive to be in Iraq and then right after it go to Germany. Iraq showed me how hard it is to remake a country or defend people who won't defend themselves. Germany showed me that one of the biggest lies we tell ourselves is that the US "rebuilt Germany and Japan after the war." That is bullshit. We help off the Soviets and set the conditions that allowed them to rebuild but ultimately it was the Germans and Japanese who rebuilt their countries not us. Our failure to understand that has gotten us into all kinds of trouble.

Governments fall when the people they govern not only realize it needs to go but understand that they are not alone in believing that. Governments like the old USSR or North Korea or Cuba today depend upon everyone thinking they are alone in hating the government and resistance is futile. The moment everyone realizes that they all hate the government and stand up in unison, the government is doomed. This is why large-scale demonstrations are such a huge threat to such governments. They show people they are not alone.

The USSR collapsed when everyone realized that they were not alone in hating the system. Once Gorbachev started allowing criticism of the system, the system was doomed. Rome was occupied by foreign invaders. To the extent it collapsed, it collapsed because people lost faith in it and were no longer willing to defend it.

Well then, all those worthless cunts should just fuck off. Go find somewhere else to bitch and moan about how much the world sucks and how shitty the Reason staff is. There are plenty of other places on the Internet that are serious about polishing Trump's knob and do a more satisfactory job of it. It would be better off if the fucking cock eaters would do the world a favor and just die.

It's a terrifying possibility, indeed. The best way to prevent this — besides protesting in a red robe, of course — is to contact your US Senators and get them on record promising to oppose Kavanaugh. If there is any chance at all he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the most brilliant piece of Constitutional law in the past half century, he must not be allowed on the Supreme Court. In fact, he doesn't belong there regardless since he was nominated by an illegitimate President who "won" a hacked election.

TRUMP HATES TESLA!
"Tesla to suppliers: We want our money back"
[...]
"Tesla is reportedly asking for refunds from suppliers in an aggressive tactic designed to help the perpetually money-losing company turn a profit.
The Palo Alto, Calif.-based electric vehicle maker has requested an unknown amount of cash back from suppliers for work done since 2016, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
The move reflects Tesla's increasing urgency to become profitable after losing more than $4 billion over the last six years."https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/
2018/07/23/tesla-suppliers-refunds-
profits/817740002/

I know it's got nothing to do with Trump, but you can't get anything published without a dose of TDS.

Can someone square the concept of supporting sanctions while supporting free trade? Because that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially since free trade has always been sold on the premise that it deescalates international conflict

One of the most effective peaceful defenses against aggressors in history is the alliance. The framers, in their wisdom, knew this, and they made it so that our senate can join alliances through treaties. One of the treaties we've joined into by thoroughly constitutional means is the NPT. As a means to enforce that treaty on our enemies, sanctions can be a less violent means to defend ourselves than war.

Sanctions, like wars, can be used well or used badly. I can support or oppose a war without questioning whether wars can be fought in a libertarian way--since they all involve the use of government force. Sanctions are the same way. If you want to argue that they're unlikely to be effective in this case, that argument is probably stronger than the suggestion that sanctions, unlike wars, can never be supported by real libertarians because they all disrupt trade.

Yes, they come with complications, and they are usually best avoided. Some treaties are better than others, however, and some treaties are terrible. Some may be desirable in certain situations. If we can use one to pressure an enemy like Iran into foregoing its nuclear ambitions without going to war, that will be a good thing.

Argue for or against them on the merits, but it's hard to argue that treaties should never be entered into--just like it's hard to argue that we should never go to war.

Applying the principle, "one of the most effective peaceful defenses against aggressors in history is the alliance," to Iran does not square.

Iran does not have a history of interfering with the internal governance of the United States. We know that the US does have a history of interfering with Iran's internal governance.

Iran does not have a history of making war against the neighbors of the United States. We know that the US does have a history of making war against Iran's neighbors and upon mendacious pretexts.

Iran does not have a history of imposing sanctions against the neighbors of the United States which result in the deaths of several hundred thousand people as gleefully attested to by Madeline Albright.

Of course, there are gullible Americans who ignorantly regurgitate the Neo-Cohen propaganda that "Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terra" in the world.

How many thousands of people in Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Bahamas have been murdered by drone strikes ordered by the mullahs?

Hypocrisy has no relevance to foreign policy. The idea that we shouldn't do what's in the best interests of our own security because it would be hypocritical has no rational basis.

Stick to arguing that something isn't in our best interests--and not because it's hypocritical. Even if you want to use a moral argument, find a better one than that. Whatever you're against because it's immoral is still immoral regardless of whether it's also hypocritical.

Iranians seized Americans at a US Embassy and kept them as hostages.
Iranians now have troops outside their borders spreading their fight.
Islam is NOT a religion of peace.
Iran has threaten the USA with utter destruction multiple times.
Iranians are now actively seeking nuclear weapons and missiles to carry nuclear weapons.

"Again, has Iran made war against America's neighbors the way the US has with Iran's neighbors?"

I don't see what this has to do with anything--other than a hypocrisy arguments, which really doesn't impress me, but, yeah, Iran is waging war in Syria and in Yemen.They're an aggressive menace to their neighbors--including Lebanon.

The Iranian currency has lost half its value in the last six months, and there are massive demonstrations in the streets. The only means they have to buy their people off is through oil sales, and U.S. pressure on our allies to refuse to buy their oil has meant their oil sales have dropped some 12% over that time. Meanwhile, they're fighting a proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and they're still trying to put down the opposition to Assad in Syria.

Blaming the United States for all their problems is an obvious way to try to keep his head off of a pike, but they're running out of options--and as Trump ramps up further pressure on Iran's economy (even making inroads with their ally, Putin), things are likely to get worse before they get better.

One of the questions that supporters of Obama's deal with Iran never seemed to answer was this: If their nuclear ambitions matter so little to the Iranians, why are they willing to suffer so much for the ability to enrich their own uranium?

I'm a little tired of reading that about how every time a cop is called on someone that its because of racism. As an average white dude, I've been confronted by cops many times.

I've had police enter a business late at night because I left the front door unlocked while I was bringing in computer parts. They got a call that someone was concerned about the lights on at that time of night. I've been stopped at gunpoint, while exiting customer premise during off hours. We generally install new systems and do system maintenance during off hours.

When I was in college I was surrounded by 5-6 police with tactical gear when I was delivering a pizza. I was dressed in my Pizza Hut uniform, had a pizza bag in hand, but was made to get on my knees because they were looking for two black men that had guns. Although, I had a legitimate reason to be in the apartment complex and clearly did not fit the description, I was detained and ID'ed at gunpoint.

Most of the stories we see are great examples of minorities getting caught in the clutches of self-righteous SJW's that believe they are empowered to make others conform to their will. Rednecks and other non-POC malcontents get caught up in these crusades also, they just tend to not make the 7 o'clock news when it happens. Nine times out of ten, if you scratch any one of these petty dictators, you will find that they bleed leftist red.

A lot of it is how you are dressed and the circumstances of where you are. If you are dressed badly and look shady and go somewhere where people generally are not, people are going to be suspicious and call the cops no matter what your race. This is also true if you are a young male or a male in general. Women generally don't have the cops called on them.

The remarkable thing about the Trump FISA issue is that it pretty much confirms every prediction libertarians made about FISA when it was passed. FISA is a secret court that ended up being used for partisan purposes just like Libertarians said it would. On top of that, it was used against Donald Trump, many of whose supporters likely supported FISA when it was passed. Reason it seems to me has a tremendous opportunity to not only get a great I told you so but to convert a lot of people who once supported FISA over to their side of being against it. Reason really can say "we told you this would happen and sure enough it happened and happened to you."

Instead, reason is totally soft-peddling the story and sending out Shackford to shill for the FBI and claim that we just don't know and should give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. It is not only unprincipled, it is also blowing a huge opportunity to turn people against FISA, which is something I always thought reason wanted to get rid of.

That is all you can say. I would be willing to bet that a large majority of the people who voted for Trump supported FISA when it was passed. It being used to try and frame their candidate is what the kids call these days a "teachable moment" if there ever was one. This is a chance not just to score points but actually convert people on the other side to the libertarian side. And reason is showing no interest in doing so. I guess they either think FISA is okay as long as it is abused against the right people or they would just rather lose than have the support of icky Trump voters or maybe both.

It really is. My other favorite is how Szork's texts don't mean that the investigation was partisan. Reason is actually giving cops the benefit of the doubt. So, I guess if it turns out that some cop has a ton of racist texts on his phone, that doesn't in any way mean that he is unprofessional or out to get black people.

Perhaps Rouhani should talk to the last guy who promised the mother of all wars. That would be Saddam. On second thought I guess he can't talk to Saddam.

That aside I don't think Russia is really an ally of Iran. It is my guess Russia's strategy is to destabilize the middle east to stablize its economy. It doesn't want Iranian oil to come on the market and lower energy prices.